New Zealand Probation Service

Periodic detention was first introduced in 1962. It enabled judges to send young offenders between the age of 15 to 20 to a residential facility. It was called periodic detention because it usually required the offender to reside at a work centre from Friday evening to Sunday morning and attend for two to four hours one evening during the week under the supervision of resident wardens. Detainees were required to participate in classes or "undergo such instruction as the warden considered conducive to that person's reformation and training".[9] Ralph Hanan the Minister of Justice at the time described it as new sentence which would "provide a useful method of dealing with young louts, vandals and the like who may be headed towards a criminal career if not diverted at an early age".[10]

Community service was established in 1980 as an amendment to the Criminal Justice Act 1954. It allowed an offender (convicted of an imprisonable offence) to undertake community service for a period of between 20 and 200 hours and the hours must be completed within 12 months. The service or work is usually for a charity or public agency and offenders cannot be paid for the work they do.[11]

With the introduction of the Sentencing Act in 2002, periodic detention and community service were abolished[12] and replaced by community work and community detention.

Supervision can be imposed for a period between 6 months and 1 year and requires the offender to report to a probation officer as and when directed. Reporting usually begins with once a week, but may be relaxed if the offender is compliant, to once a fortnight then once a month. The offender is required to notify the probation officer where they live and work and must obey any directives which prohibit "association with specified persons" such as co-offenders.[13]

Unlike 'supervision', which is mainly a monitoring process, intensive supervision is a sentence focused on rehabilitation. It may be imposed for up to two years and includes participation in counselling, residential treatment if required and other appropriate training programmes. It may also include regular reports to the court on the offender's progress.[14]

Community detention was introduced by the Sentencing Act of 2002. This allows an offender to continue working in the community but under a curfew requiring them to remain at an approved residence at certain times, usually in the evenings. The sentence can be imposed for anywhere between 14 days and six months and the offender wears a bracelet and is monitored electronically to ensure compliance.[15]

In 2007 the Parole Amendment Act removed responsibility for the imposition of home detention from the Parole Board and made it a stand-alone sentence that could be imposed by district court judges.[16] It can only be imposed as an alternative to prison if the potential prison sentence faced by the offender is two years or less.

Offenders on home detention are required to wear an ankle bracelet and stay at an approved address where they are electronically monitored 24 hours a day for up to 12 months.[17] Detainees may be able to work but also have to undertake rehabilitation programmes to address the causes of their offending. Any leave of absence to attend work, rehabilitation programmes, or important appointments such as the doctor requires pre-approval of the offender's probation officer.

In 2014, approximately 1,800 offenders were serving sentences of home detention. Offenders are likely to be sent to prison if they leave the address without permission or breach the home detention rules. However, 'breaches' sometimes occur because the signal 'drops out' giving the impression that the offender has absconded from the detention address when they have not.[18] The most significant breaches occur when offenders cut off the bracelet. According to the Corrections Department, only 1% of those on home detention cut their bracelets off and the majority are caught soon afterwards and sentenced to prison.[19]

In addition to managing offenders given community based sentences and offenders on parole, probation officers also provide information and reports to judges prior to sentencing - generally known as pre-sentence reports (or Provision of Information). PIO contain information about the offender's background, his history of compliance with previous sentences and recommendations for a particular sentence - although it is up to the judge to decide what sentence to impose. Probation provides the courts with about 260 such pre-sentence reports every month. Judges rarely comment on the quality of reports but in 2013, the Auckland Probation service was criticised by Judge Nevin Dawson for failing to follow his orders regarding a pre-sentence report. The judge said the report was "extremely unhelpful" because it recommended community service and ignored his order to consider home detention in the case of two young men who flashed a laser light at a police helicopter.[27]

Judges are also able to call for alcohol and drug assessments on offenders so they can ascertain the extent to which substance use has been a contributing factor in their offending. These assessments enable judges to decide whether the offender should be mandated to attend alcohol and drug counselling or a residential treatment programme as part of the sentence. Although 80% of offenders commit their crimes under the influence of alcohol OOand drugs,[28] historically judges have ordered an assessment or treatment in only 5% of cases.[29] In 2010, this figure went up to 10%.

Probation also assists sentence planners in prison in the preparation of reports on all prisoners appearing before the New Zealand Parole Board. These are known as parole assessment reports (PARs)[7] and describe the parolees progress in prison - including which rehabilitation programmes the prisoner has completed, what misconduct or other incidents he has been involved in while in prison and an assessment of the proposed address to which the prisoner hopes to be released. The Probation Service also employs about 100 psychologists who write psychological risk assessments on prisoners to assist the Board determine their risk of re-offending on release.

In March 2015, probation officer Stanley Gilmour sued the Corrections Department after key paragraphs about a particular prisoner, whom he described as having a high risk of violent reoffending, were removed without his knowledge from his report delivered to the Parole Board. The prisoner was subsequently released by the Board but then disappeared from the address where his parole board required him to live. Mr Gilmour's barrister Warren Templeton said: "The claim highlights actions which fundamentally undermine the integrity of the system" and the report was forwarded to the Parole Board on a "misleading and incorrect basis".[30]

A significant feature of parole assessments is the RoC*RoI (Risk of re-Conviction times Risk of re-Imprisonment, pronounced "rock roy").[31] This is a statistical tool based on numerous factors in the offenders personal history which assesses their future risk of reimprisonment. Relevant factors include the offender's age when first convicted, his number of previous offences, number of prison sentences and their escape history. Other variables include the offender's level of education, employment history, criminal attitudes, criminal associates, and history of alcohol and drug use.[32] The offender's Risk of Re-conviction (RoC) is multiplied by the offender's Risk of Imprisonment (RoI) giving a percentage score which indicates the likelihood of the offender ending up back in prison. According to Corrections, "statistical or actuarial scales (such as the RoC*RoI) consistently outperform the judgements of experts" when assessing risk of re-offending. However, RoC*RoI relies on data available to Corrections and may not take into account youth offending or offending outside of New Zealand, and it can produce anomalous results for some offences such as drink driving and child sex offending.[33] A parole assessment report, with the prisoner's RoC*RoI score, is provided to the Parole Board on every prisoner appearing before it.

Despite the department's reliance on statistical analysis, the auditor general is concerned about the quality of reports given to courts and to the Parole Board. In a review provided to Parliament in 2012, he recommended that Corrections should have their reports audited by independent assessors from outside the department.[34]

The Parole Board also has concerns about the information it receives - particularly the lack of alcohol and drug assessments on offenders. The National Study of Psychiatric Morbidity in NZ Prisons, conducted in 1999, said 89.4% of prisoners had a current alcohol or drug problem.[35] Despite this high percentage, in 2010, former board chairman, Judge David Carruthers, declared that the Parole Board is "flying blind" on this issue.[36] Section 43(1(a)) of the Parole Act 2002 states:

When an offender is due to be released at his or her statutory release date, or to be considered by the Board for parole, the Department of Corrections must provide the Board with copies of all relevant information relating to the offender's current and previous convictions, including (for example) sentencing notes and pre-sentence reports.

After the 2011 election, a commitment to conduct alcohol and drug assessments on all parolees prior to their release was included as part of the confidence and supply agreement between Peter Dunne of United Future and the National Party.[37] By 2013, this commitment had not been honoured.